Background
Plaintiffs Elizabeth and Todd Strealy filed a lawsuit against the Board of Supervisors of Louisiana State University and A&M College (“LSU”) after one of them tripped and fell due to a pavement deviation on the university’s campus. The incident occurred in a heavily trafficked area near the campus Barnes & Noble bookstore.
LSU moved for summary judgment, arguing that the deviation was not an unreasonably dangerous condition and that they had no notice of a defect. The trial court in the 19th Judicial District Court denied LSU’s motion.
Seeking to overturn the trial court’s denial, LSU applied for a supervisory writ from the Louisiana Court of Appeal, First Circuit, asking the appellate court to review and reverse the lower court’s judgment.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeal granted LSU’s writ and reversed the trial court’s decision. The appellate panel held that the plaintiffs had failed to meet their burden of proof to show that the alleged defect was unreasonably dangerous. The court found that the deviation fell “well within the 1 to 1.5 inches that Louisiana courts have found do not present an unreasonable risk of harm,” citing a line of established case law including Chambers v. Vill. of Moreauville and Boyle v. Board of Supervisors, Louisiana State University.
Furthermore, the court noted that the high-traffic area had no history of similar trip-and-fall incidents, which suggested that the likelihood and magnitude of potential harm were low. Because the plaintiffs could not demonstrate that the condition was unreasonably dangerous or that LSU had actual or constructive notice of it, the Court of Appeal concluded that summary judgment was appropriate. The court granted LSU’s motion and dismissed the Strealys’ claims with prejudice.
Key Takeaways
- Under established Louisiana precedent, a sidewalk or pavement deviation of 1 to 1.5 inches is generally insufficient to be considered an unreasonable risk of harm.
- In a premises liability case, the plaintiff bears the burden on summary judgment of proving that an alleged defect is unreasonably dangerous.
- The lack of prior similar accidents in a high-traffic area is strong evidence that the likelihood and magnitude of harm from a condition are low.
- A defendant is entitled to summary judgment when the plaintiff fails to produce evidence to support essential elements of their claim, such as the existence of an unreasonably dangerous condition or the defendant’s notice of that condition.
Why It Matters
This opinion reinforces the significant legal threshold plaintiffs must clear in trip-and-fall cases in Louisiana. It affirms that not every imperfection on a walking surface creates liability for the property owner. For public entities and landowners like LSU, the decision clarifies that Louisiana law protects them from liability for minor, non-dangerous deviations that are common in public spaces.
The ruling underscores the power of summary judgment as a tool to efficiently resolve litigation where a plaintiff cannot produce sufficient evidence to support their claim. For attorneys, it serves as a reminder of the critical importance of precedent and the specific evidentiary burdens required to sustain a premises liability lawsuit past the summary judgment stage.